Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pesticides topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Farm testimony, board rules and a study plan dominate debate on restricting neonicotinoids
Summary
Lawmakers debated reclassifying neonicotinoids as restricted-use and ordered the Pesticide Control Board to study rules and exemptions on a date certain; farmers testified treated seed is common and alternatives are limited, while regulators noted jurisdictional and practical constraints.
Lawmakers spent an extended session examining proposals to restrict neonicotinoid pesticides and to clarify regulation of pesticide‑treated seed. Representative Bixby and others urged the committee to direct the Pesticide Control Board (PCB) to study restrictions and make rules — possibly reclassifying certain neonicotinoids as "restricted use." Supporters cited environmental and pollinator concerns; opponents and several agricultural witnesses warned of limited alternatives and supply-chain constraints.
David Russo of the Department of Agriculture explained that EPA does not always classify treated seed as a pesticide but that, in practice, treated seed use is handled through pesticide regulations and the state’s seed law. He said sale bans would have to be enacted by statute, and that the treatment of seed can be regulated on the use side by the PCB.
Farmers who testified — including Sarah Rocklage, Sai Robertson and Chris Brady — described seed treatment as routine and often necessary for reliable yields in New Hampshire’s short growing season. Rocklage said, “Most of all almost all sweet corn is treated... you can get some raw seed, but it's very hard to find the certain varieties that we grow.” Several farmers urged study and transition time to ensure alternatives and supply chains are available.
Members debated two amendment approaches: a longer, more prescriptive laundry list of topics for PCB to address, and a shorter directive that would give PCB a date certain to act with flexibility to fashion rules and exemptions. The committee signaled support for placing a deadline and for briefing PCB (including notification systems for apiaries), while balancing concerns about enforceability and the need for study of alternatives and supply‑chain adjustments.
Next steps: sponsors plan an amendment directing PCB to begin rulemaking work with a date certain and to craft notification plans for beekeepers; members suggested coordinating with neighboring states and Cornell research on alternatives.
